Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
---- In-universe categories Brain A subcat to Category:Anatomy with all the anatomical parts of the brain as well as things like neurotransmitters etc. There is a list on the brain page to start this category. :I like the idea, but is that the best name for it? How about "Nervous system"? --LauraCC (talk) 15:56, December 16, 2016 (UTC) ::"Brain anatomy" seems like the obvious term for what you seem to want to be doing. I too think that "brain" is a bit too vague: it seems like the proposed category would be intended for brain components, but if it's just called "brain" people might not get that and put things like "lobotomy", "cranial implant" or "aneurysm" in it. Otherwise, Support. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:17, December 18, 2016 (UTC) :I suppose if there are enough that fall into such a category, we could add "neurological conditions" as well. --LauraCC (talk) 18:29, December 22, 2016 (UTC) Holoprograms :This seems like diminishing returns from the 233 page Dixon Hill category. Are these pages too much for their articles? Are any of them they really in danger of being lost in the shuffle? - 17:04, December 30, 2016 (UTC) It's not that they wouldn't retain their other categorizations, just gain a new one. --LauraCC (talk) 17:06, December 30, 2016 (UTC) :I'm asking why, other than the fact that we have some for much larger and more inclusive programs, do we need these? The articles on the programs seem like they would be enough. - 17:40, December 30, 2016 (UTC) Consistency, chiefly. I wonder if you think Category:The Adventures of Flotter would have worked better as a template then. Separated by "stories", "characters", and "locations"? --LauraCC (talk) 17:42, December 30, 2016 (UTC) :Yeah, I don't think we "needed" that one either. We don't "need" templates to list links on pages where all the relevant subjects are already linked, and we don't "need" categories to group them together if the main article already does that. - 18:12, December 30, 2016 (UTC) It looks nicer, perhaps. And aids those who wish to find all related topics at a glance or who see the world differently (more visual learners than readers). To allow people of different learning styles/intelligence types to understand their way. I don't know. It doesn't have to be that way. It's just that there have been new templates created and old ones deleted, categories made into templates and vice versa...it's hard sometimes to know which more people will support or like. --LauraCC (talk) 18:15, December 30, 2016 (UTC) :Start with what problem you want to solve, and then ask yourself what the most natural solution is. Refine from there, making sure you have an actual problem and your solutions don't create more problems than they solve. That said, templates and categories go after subsections and lists on the hierarchy of solutions in a wiki. - 18:23, December 30, 2016 (UTC) My intention was to show/list things which are mentioned/seen in these programs. Maybe Dixon Hill should be weeded, or split into two: a) things seen/said when Picard plays the program and b)stuff from that lit Data was reading, like Silent Forrester. --LauraCC (talk) 18:29, December 30, 2016 (UTC) 20th-21st pre-warp spacefaring personnel (not the proposed category name) See all the names at Space shuttle missions. Many are only listed in Category:Humans, which I feel is kind of sad, given the historical importance of their roles. This is what I really meant to do with this suggestion. Call it a better name if you can think of one. --LauraCC (talk) 20:40, January 26, 2017 (UTC) :Not addressing the reason the last suggestion failed isn't a good way to start here. Changing the name to something worse isn't helping either. - 21:13, January 26, 2017 (UTC) Now there are plenty more names (the scarcity of which on the "astronaut" page was mentioned the last time as being a reason why not), and they clearly also fall into a more important category than the bland category of "Humans" alone. I don't know what it would be a subcat of, and I welcome naming suggestions. Take G. Burdette, for example - beyond "Humans", they get the category of "Fleet Operations Center personnel". How about "shuttle personnel" or "NASA personnel"? (I like the latter better, myself) --LauraCC (talk) 21:16, January 26, 2017 (UTC) To my way of thinking, if the following hypothetical scenario happened - Hoshi Sato is in the middle of a park on Earth when Human Ensign Smith comes up to her in uniform and introduces his identical twin brother, who's in civilian clothing, saying, "I want you to meet my twin brother, Joe. Unlike me, he didn't choose Starfleet - he's an economist." and leaves it at that. "Joe Smith" would then (quite naturally) be categorized under "Category:Humans", because that's all we know about him. But these astronauts - even though they're just names on assignment patches - we know what they were beyond simply being Humans. Does anybody see my side? --LauraCC (talk) 16:20, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :So you want to exclude people like Christa McAuliffe, Julie Payette, Valeri Tokarev, and Ilan Ramon? They are not NASA personnel, they just flew on NASA's shuttles. Not to mention people like Yuri Gagarin, assuming a reference can actually make it on screen at some point. - 17:33, January 27, 2017 (UTC) No, I didn't. The category could include those who worked in conjunction with NASA (the page could explain this at the top). --LauraCC (talk) 17:35, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :Then your intention isn't a category for NASA personnel, and the name's wrong. - 17:37, January 27, 2017 (UTC) But my premise is sound, to group them together? Because they all have something in common other than just being Human; they were members of the space program. --LauraCC (talk) 17:39, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :Support "Astronauts" in Category:Personnel lists and "Earth astronauts" in the obvious and Category:Earth personnel. - 18:26, February 1, 2017 (UTC) Thank you. --LauraCC (talk) 18:39, February 1, 2017 (UTC) Earth inhabitants Would there be any value to having a category like this? It might be a good place for redirects to unnamed (non-Starfleet, mostly) people who live on Earth of any century, such as all those Unnamed Humans (20th century). Joseph Sisko could go there, as a civilian who lives on Earth, as opposed to the Humans on the Omicron colony. Vulcans like Mestral, (having decided to stay on Earth) would also fall into this category. --LauraCC (talk) 17:11, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :Oppose. Unnecessary with to many downsides. - 17:33, January 27, 2017 (UTC) There's so many San Francisco people, for instance. *19th c. - 16 entries + *20th c. -24 entries + *21st c. - 10 entries + *Alternate reality - 4 entries = 54 entries in "Unnamed Humans" pages alone (some with multiple people) I suppose I should have started there, with a list page suggestion first? --LauraCC (talk) 17:44, January 27, 2017 (UTC) Just curious, what are the downsides? --LauraCC (talk) 16:18, January 31, 2017 (UTC) It catches individuals who uniquely fit into a category you wouldn't think one of their kind would, at first glance. Like how Human Stefan DeSeve is in Category:Romulan military personnel. He's probably the lone (normal, not counting Shinzon) Human there. --LauraCC (talk) 19:02, January 31, 2017 (UTC) Programs and projects For all organized scientific projects, such as Warp Five program, Pathfinder Project, Science project etc, many of which are now in Category:Missions and expeditions - the category carries connotations of travel elsewhere required to carry it out, while a project or program could be carried out in one stationary location. --LauraCC (talk) 19:12, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :Oppose. There's an obvious problem in the position that these need a new category because travel is implied in the old one while listing the Warp Five program as a non-travel example, to say nothing of the Pathfinder Project. - 20:09, January 27, 2017 (UTC) I meant that a mission is like going on a trip to a planet, doing something, and coming back, whereas a project can be but need not be in every instance. It's the way I think of these things. A conflict could be a mission, too, but they're both separate categories under "Category:Events". --LauraCC (talk) 20:12, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :Except the Alamo is a mission, and relatively speaking, it's not going anywhere. If your problem is with the name, it isn't going to be solved with a different category, but a different name. - 20:25, January 27, 2017 (UTC) I guess so. I don't think it was a science project though...--LauraCC (talk) 20:28, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :How is putting science project and Project Genesis in the same category worth putting the Warp Five program and Bashir 62 in the same category? The line has to be drawn somewhere. - 20:48, January 27, 2017 (UTC) Program, defined as "an organized project of research or construction" - on the scale of the space program. Not "I Love Lucy".--LauraCC (talk) 20:50, January 27, 2017 (UTC) Medical establishments category=Medical organizations category=Establishments|Earth establishments For pages in both the "medical organizations" and the "establishments" categories. - 21:51, January 31, 2017 (UTC) :You mean specific named places as opposed to sorts of places? --LauraCC (talk) 21:54, January 31, 2017 (UTC) I don't see why Coma ward, Hospital, and Maternity ward can't be included too, do you? - 22:01, January 31, 2017 (UTC) :I was trying to figure out what the difference was between an establishment and an organization. And the two wards are already in Category:Wards, which might then become a subcat of this new proposed category? --LauraCC (talk) 22:04, January 31, 2017 (UTC) Medical disciplines category=Medicine category=Academic disciplines For all academic disciplines in the medicine and psychology categories category. Neat trick, by the way. (DPL, that is) --LauraCC (talk) 21:58, January 31, 2017 (UTC) :Oppose, psychology isn't in the Medicine category tree. - 22:07, January 31, 2017 (UTC) Revised, then. "Branches of medicine" or "medical specialties", whatever you want to call it. I chose "disciplines" to be in line with "academic disciplines". --LauraCC (talk) 22:14, January 31, 2017 (UTC) :Support revised suggested list. - 18:26, February 1, 2017 (UTC) Which name do you prefer of the 3? --LauraCC (talk) 18:29, February 1, 2017 (UTC) Earth probes category=Probes category=Earth For pages in both the "Earth" and "probes" categories. Some pages this would apply to aren't listed here. - 22:01, January 31, 2017 (UTC) USS Matte Fringe personnel To replace the list at . --LauraCC (talk) 17:50, February 1, 2017 (UTC) :Support. - 18:26, February 1, 2017 (UTC) Subspace communication To replace Template:Subspace, unless it could be edited into "technology" and "types of communications" sections. --LauraCC (talk) 19:39, February 1, 2017 (UTC) category=Subspace category=communications technology --LauraCC (talk) 19:46, February 1, 2017 (UTC) Production POV categories E3 award winners and nominees Apparently Star Trek (video game) won some E3 awards (aka "Game Critics Awards") http://www.digitalextremes.com/news/2011/08/star-trek-wins-big-e3-2011, and Star Trek: Bridge Crew was nominated recently for best vr game. http://uploadvr.com/best-vr-games-awards-e3-2016/ I'm still unsure which one is the proper name for the award, hence my hesitation to add it to the awards page. --LauraCC (talk) 17:23, December 31, 2016 (UTC) Also, would the expo itself get its own page (like some magazines have, such as Prosthetics, which isn't an exclusively Trek publication) or a section on a general expo page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Entertainment_Expo --LauraCC (talk) 17:35, December 31, 2016 (UTC) Feel free to wait to answer my second post about a page for the expo until this discussion is moved to a category talk page (if it ever is). --LauraCC (talk) 21:38, January 24, 2017 (UTC) Puppeteers A subcat of "Category:Performers"(?) for all who operated puppets on a Star Trek production. * Alison Elbl * Bob Baker * Heide Pendergast * Dan Curry * John Fifer * Kevin D. Carlson * Alan McFarland * David Stipes * Paul Elliot * J.J. Abrams (tribble on ) * Tony Hudson (whales) * Mark Miller (whales) --LauraCC (talk) 16:57, January 12, 2017 (UTC) We have other options also: 1) include this list in a background note @ the in-universe article Puppeteer (which only has one reference - I've already added a short note saying the shows used puppeteers to operate small moving creatures) 2) create a real-world page (a la Stand-in) for this role (my preference if a category isn't made) --LauraCC (talk) 17:32, January 18, 2017 (UTC) I just wonder how the real-world article and the in-universe one would be disambiguated? "(Real world)"? "(Production)"? --LauraCC (talk) 19:00, January 18, 2017 (UTC) I previously disambiguated United States Postal Service in universe from United States Postal Service (real world) that way, but I don't particularly like that approach either. --LauraCC (talk) 19:20, January 19, 2017 (UTC) Anthologies Subcat of "Novels", for all books containing multiple, can-be-read-separately stories. * Distant Shores * Constellations * Infinity's Prism * Echoes and Refractions * Shattered Light * Glass Empires * Obsidian Alliances * Shards and Shadows * Seven Deadly Sins * The New Voyages * The eleven Star Trek: Strange New Worlds books * Star Trek: Enterprise Logs * The Sky's the Limit --LauraCC (talk) 20:13, January 26, 2017 (UTC) :We already have a category for omnibus books (novel collections), so I'd be OK with this, as long as it's explicity stated that it's for anthologies of short stories/novellas, thus keeping it separate from the novel collections. -- sulfur (talk) 18:10, January 30, 2017 (UTC) That makes sense. --LauraCC (talk) 18:13, January 30, 2017 (UTC) Maintenance categories Deleted scene images by TV series/film series I know we only have 133 images total in the deleted scene category, but I thought from an organizational standpoint it might be consistent with how we divide episode images now. I suggested series divisions rather than by individual episode, as that would be too small a division for now. This seems like a compromise. --LauraCC (talk) 17:43, January 30, 2017 (UTC) :Oppose. Unnecessary as these images should already be in the appropriate production's category. - 18:03, January 30, 2017 (UTC) Isn't it sort of like how we have "Remastered images from episode X" as a subcat of "images from episode x"? --LauraCC (talk) 18:06, January 30, 2017 (UTC) :No, not even close. Do you check the category tree before suggesting these things? - 18:18, January 30, 2017 (UTC) Not as often as I ought to. My enthusiasm runneth over. Question: do images (real-world) of a DVD box set belong in the same category as an image from the film (in universe)? Asking because while looking at the "Beyond" images category, I saw a few images of DVD boxes. --LauraCC (talk) 18:22, January 30, 2017 (UTC) ::That category isn't an in-universe category. Film and episode image categories are "real world" ones. -- sulfur (talk) 23:34, January 31, 2017 (UTC) I guess what I was getting at was, do packaging images belong in the same image category as footage images? (Like how comic book covers like this don't go in the same category as the cover of a book seen in the episode, like this. --LauraCC (talk) 16:10, February 1, 2017 (UTC) :First, use internal links for internal links. Second, your examples are apples and oranges. - 16:20, February 1, 2017 (UTC) ::One is a "real world" collection, the other an "in-universe" collection. Images by episode, images by film, etc... REAL WORLD collection. -- sulfur (talk) 16:43, February 1, 2017 (UTC)